Posted - 03/22/2012 : 13:33:59 For those who didn't see it, Duncan Keith nailed Daniel Sedin with an obvious elbow to the head / face last night in a hotly contested, playoff like battle between the Canucks and Hawks. Daniel had hit him a few shifts prior as he surprisingly "finished his check" and did get Keith high with that hit. According to H. Sedin, Keith "called his shot", after he'd taken the hit from Daniel, though surely this will not be factored in.

Bottom line is, the elbow was thrown, the head was targeted and hit, the player didn't have, nor never had, possession of the puck AND the player was injured (enough to leave the game after attempting one more shift, and fly home to Vancouver, missing the rest of the road trip and likely more).

My guess is he'll get 3 games, similar to what Doan rec'd. Do i think that's enough? No, but at the same time, i don't care. The Hawks will likely benefit from it as it will be like a forced resting period just prior to the post season, for a guy who plays 28 mins a night! This will prob do him and the team some good! Worst case scenario, it affects them in the standings and they end up 6th rather than 4th or 5th. Now ask yourself, if you were a Blackhawk fan, player, coach, etc, would you rather finish in 4th or 5th and face either Detroit or Nashville, or would you be okay with 6th having to face Dallas or Phoenix? Ironic huh!

Funniest thing i heard was the local radio guys saying that it'd be more of a punishment to Keith and his team if they forced him to play the next 3 games, all 60mins!!! Lol, obviously they were just making a point, but A. Kovalev came to mind as a guy who would have loved that kind of suspension!

37 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)

Alex116

Posted - 04/14/2012 : 17:20:46 Time to dissect what is hopefully the most ridiculous thing i read today, cuz if anyone's gonna write something worse than this garbage, i hope i don't see it!!!

quote:Originally posted by curly2eight

If the referees had called the appropriate penalty on Sedin to begin with, there would have been no "retribution" needed.

So, retribution was "needed" eh? Is that how it works in your world? What was the "appropriate penalty" to Sedin anyway. I've heard everything from nothing to a major, a game misconduct and a suspension. Do you really think if he rec'd all of the above that Keith wouldn't have still done something if given the chance? I get the feeling Keith was embarrassed that he actually got hit by a Sedin! You know, it doesn't happen very often.

quote:Originally posted by curly2eight Keith's elbow was more than just retaliation to a hit to the head from the blind side well after the puck was gone. It was the culmination of many, many dirty plays (not called by referees) between both teams in the last 3 years of hockey.

Does this make it any better? Any more of a hockey play? Any more acceptable? Does is suddenly change things? Lemme get this straight, because of all sorts of dirty plays between these teams over the last 3 years, Duncan Keith decided to take it into his own hands and throw an elbow at a guy who was NOTHING to do with ANY of those 3 years worth of dirty plays???

quote:Originally posted by curly2eight Torres on Seabrook was just as bad. At least Keith came at Sedin from the front. Why didn't Sedin protect himself? He had to know that Keith was coming for him, especially if there was a "called shot" as purported by his brother.

I shouldn't even have to respond to this part. It's arguably the most ridiculous thing i've read. Lemme re check this. For a second there, i thought you wrote 'Why didn't Sedin protect himself?" WAIT! You did! OMG........ I just threw up in my mouth.

Clatts

Posted - 04/14/2012 : 12:54:31 This hit is certainly more interesting now that Vancouver has lost 2 at home. I don't think Sedins absence is the whole reason they are losing but it sure doesn't help.

"Most of the guys that wear them are Europeans and French Guys."Don Cherry on Visors

curly2eight

Posted - 04/14/2012 : 12:44:25 If the referees had called the appropriate penalty on Sedin to begin with, there would have been no "retribution" needed. Keith's elbow was more than just retaliation to a hit to the head from the blind side well after the puck was gone. It was the culmination of many, many dirty plays (not called by referees) between both teams in the last 3 years of hockey. Torres on Seabrook was just as bad. At least Keith came at Sedin from the front. Why didn't Sedin protect himself? He had to know that Keith was coming for him, especially if there was a "called shot" as purported by his brother.

Alex116

Posted - 03/26/2012 : 14:02:49

quote:Originally posted by just1n

What is the status of Daniel Sedin anyway? The Canucks seem to be keeping pretty quiet about it.

Concussion. That's all they're saying. Prob because they have no idea how long he'll be out!

Kinda funny though, i read a ton of comments on a yahoo article the other day from either Canuck haters or Hawks fans (or both) who kept saying "what a faker, he'll be back in a couple of games.....They're just saying that to make the suspension worse!" and crap like that! So, originally the Canucks say (after the game) that he's likely got a concussion and that's the kind of reply they get. Now that nothing's been confirmed, everyone wonders why they're not saying much!

Again, there's no predicting how long a guy will take from this sort of head injury so it's tough for them to give a timeline for his return.

just1n

Posted - 03/26/2012 : 12:52:17 What is the status of Daniel Sedin anyway? The Canucks seem to be keeping pretty quiet about it.

slozo

Posted - 03/26/2012 : 10:53:16

quote:Originally posted by Lee Marshall

I think 5 games was WAY too light. 10 games would have been a message worth sending. It was a blatant retiation and attempt to injure. The 'success' of Keih's purposeful venture dictates a suspension in kind.

Who the cap fits...Let them wear it.

I totally agree with this, actually.

I think the barometer for exactly how "effective" a suspension is - especially on a more dramatically "bad" offence - is if the team of the injured/affected player feels the need for retribution afterward.

I would think that in this case . . . there might be a slew-foot or a stick in the groin in Keith's future, next time he plays the Canucks. Most certainly, he'll have a flashing neon "HIT ME HARD" sign on his back!

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Lee Marshall

Posted - 03/26/2012 : 10:44:33 I think 5 games was WAY too light. 10 games would have been a message worth sending. It was a blatant retaliation and attempt to injure. The 'success' of Keith's purposeful venture dictates a suspension in kind.

Who the cap fits...Let them wear it.

mandree888

Posted - 03/26/2012 : 05:41:37 as for the hit the JW did on CC. i think that suspension was perfect. because it had nothing to do with how much the player gettin hit was hurt. it was ALL about taking that kind of hit out!more calls should be like that.

Alex116

Posted - 03/25/2012 : 10:24:52 Just read an article where both Keith and Toews commented on the suspension and while neither said they completely agreed with it, they worded their responses to seem that they respect Shanny's decision and will move forward. Pretty diplomatic responses really which is expected. I'm sure Keith wasn't hoping to concuss Sedin but with the rivalry the way it is, he surely wanted to hit him and make it hurt to some degree. I can't blame him for that.

BUT, the worst part of the article i read which i kinda hope is untrue was this quote - "For what it's worth, according to RDS reporter Renaud Lavoie, the league looked at Sedin's hit on Keith and concluded that it was clean." WTF? Clean??? I hope this guy is either not a reliable source, or has been misquoted. I would like to think the league said "not suspendable or fine worthy" but "CLEAN"? I sure hope not. While i don't think Sedin intended to target the head, there's no denying it was the PPC.

Alex116

Posted - 03/25/2012 : 10:16:11 Spade....I've been so tempted to mention / compare to the Rome suspension but didn't want to seem to be whining about something from last June or about another Canuck suspension for that matter. However, i totally agree with you and if you read my comments from last June, you're aware of how ridiculous i thought Rome's suspension was! Personally, i don't think it cost the Canucks the cup (that's not the point i was trying to make) but i do think it was overboard for sure.

BUT, if anyone or any team ought to be pissed at the inconsistency that we continue to witness, it's James Wisniewski, the Columbus Blue Jackets and their fans (however many of those there are out there?).

The hit he delivered to Cal Clutterbuck was bad AND it was after the whistle / horn, but IMO, it was not as bad as Keith's. Yes, Wisniewski was a repeat offender, but Clutterbuck wasn't even seriously injured and i don't think he missed any games! No way he deserved 8 games (plus the remainder of the preseason which i don't recall how many games he had left?) if Keith only got 5! It just emphasises the lack of consistency we are still seeing in the suspensions for illegal hits!

spade632

Posted - 03/24/2012 : 18:14:03 A few thoughts:

1) I think Sedin on Keith earlier in the game deserved a suspension as well.

2) Keith on Sedin DEFINTIELY did. the puck was nowhere near Sedin and Keith clearly targeted the head.

We all know by now that Keith has received a 5 game suspension. What bugs me about it, to an extent at least) is that Aaron Rome got four games in the Finals for, what seems to me at least, to be a hit that wasn't anywhere near as bad as Keith's.

If I was the Canucks, I'd be pretty annoyed that Rome gets 4 games and Keith "only" got 5 games in the regular season, effectively, a week and a bit off for him to rest up before the playoff.

3) I've said this elsewhere, but if the NHL really wants to get rid of head/cheap shots and/or fighting they need to get DRACONIAN about suspensions.

1st offense - 10 games, then 1/2 season, then full season (or something) with corresponding fines to players, coaches, and the teams.

And, tangentially, the standard has to be consistently applied across the league (same goes for officiating - though refs are only human and everyone can make mistakes).

Alex116

Posted - 03/24/2012 : 13:03:30 I'm not at all surprised by it, but the fact that Shanny requested an "in person" review sure made it seem as though it'd be more.

Personally, i think Shanny missed a great opportunity to set a better example by giving him "the rest of the season". Only 2 more games than he got, but it would have made more of an impact on others going forward.

I'm still surprised that the Sedin hit wasn't at least reviewed (or was it?). The head was hit undeniably and that ought to at least warrant a fine of some sort.

Shanny's done pretty good overall, but i'd say there's still room for a lot of improvement.

just1n

Posted - 03/23/2012 : 16:08:36 I expected 5 actually.

sahis34

Posted - 03/23/2012 : 15:14:47 He just got 5 games.

Alex116

Posted - 03/23/2012 : 11:15:32 Here's the biggest problem with taking injury into concern. How do you suspend a guy, when you don't know how long the victim will be out??? Look at the Rene Bourque hit on Backstrom. It didn't look as bad to me as the Keith hit, yet Backstrom is still out! Bourque got 5 games and Backstrom's missed 30+ games and counting! Conversely, Sedin could be back after missing only 5 or 6? Does this make the Keith hit any less flagrant? Just because maybe it didn't connect the same way as Bourque's or have the same result???

It's been said before, one of these days someone's gonna get killed! Let's hope changes come before we have to witness anything so preventable.

mandree888

Posted - 03/23/2012 : 10:51:08 i am in agreeance with beans. (wow that hurt) rofl jk beans. but seriously the injury shouldnt matter the only way to take this kind of thing out is to deal with it strickly and evenly no matter if the playrs connects with the hit, misses with the hit, or grazes. the punishment must be even no matter if you have done it before or not. it is the only way to abolish this kind of stupidity. it will only end carreers faster and deprive the fans of this sport from watch the best of the era.

nuxfan

Posted - 03/23/2012 : 10:43:17

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

I think this change in hearings from a telephone conversation to an in-person meeting is disturbing. Not because I think that a suspension of more than 5 games is too much. What I have a problem with is the NHL considering the injury portion of a player in their suspensions. I believe in punishing the action and not the outcome. If Sedin is not injured, does that make the Keith hit less dangerous??

I still like 3 games for this based on Keith`s lack of history in this kind of thing. The guy not only doesn`t participate in these kinds of hits but donesn`t play dirty in general. This is a guy who plays 25+ a game and has 62 penalty minutes in the past 154 games!! He has never had more than 80 PIMS in a season, which is unreal for a defensemen who plays these kinds of minutes.

On the other hand, the hit was about at predetory as you can find an example of. Direct hit to the head, intent to injure. If this was another player with a past history, the punishment would like be more than 10 games.

Maybe more than 5 in this case but not more than 10.

I think this move indicates that the suspension will be more than 5 games, otherwise why do it?

Beans, the NHL has been taking injury status into account all year long. I don't think it says anything about the hit, but is designed to be putative in nature. As long as he's consistent, it's fine

Alex116

Posted - 03/23/2012 : 09:30:44 Lol @ Clatts...... You're tell me to calm down? What exactly did i say that implied i was upset or freaking out, or in need of "calming down"? I simply stated that the "sisters" comment is old, nothing more. I don't care what you call them personally. While they're not my favorite players, i do like them, think they're talented, think they're incredibly good people, etc.

In case you missed it, my entire point wasn't about you calling them sisters. It was the whole ignorant "replacement parts" bit and to me it looked like you were downplaying the seriousness of the hit and the injury. If i misinterpretted this, i apologize for not seeing your feeble attempt at humour. However, when you follow it up with cracks at starting riots and "2 sisters no cups", it just shows your intent. It's like something brilliant suddenly popped in your head....."Hey, Alex didn't like my attempt at humour. I know what i'll do, i'll roast him about his team who's never won a cup and the fact that their city had a riot when they lost. Yeah, that'll get him!". Man, you really nailed me there Clatts. This coming from a guy who, judging by his posts, prob wasn't even born the last time the Flames won the cup.

Clatts

Posted - 03/23/2012 : 09:04:53

quote:Originally posted by Alex116

Beans, the only issue i had, and would still have had if i'd seen a better view prior to my post, was you saying that the Sedin hit was a headshot and not a case of finishing his check. That's ludicrous. If you wanna go on about what a saint Keith is (and i agree with your analysis and think it's out of character what he did) that's fine, but you gotta give the same leeway to Daniel Sedin no? I mean seriously, this might have been the first check he's ever thrown . Surely he wasn't intentionally headhunting??? At least his hit was part of what has unfortunately become a legal play in hockey, that being "finishing your check"! NOTHING Keith did was anything to do with a hockey play.

My best guess is that both guys got somewhat caught up in what's become arguably hockey's biggest rivalry. Emotions were high and the hits and scrums had already begun prior to this. For Sedin to actually throw that check on Keith pretty much proves this imo. You just rarely / never see either of the "sisters" finish their check (at least not that hard) and for Daniel to do it arguably late, tells me that the emotions were flying!

BTW, Slozo, i too hate the "sisters" thing. It was funny for awhile, but c'mon, someone's gotta come up with some fresh material. What i hate more than a guy like Clatts calling them "sisters", is the stupid comments they make about them. "So Sedin is hurt on a play, isn't that why his sister is there? Replacement parts." Really? Maybe it's me? Was that supposed to be an attempt at humour??? I read this kind of crap all the time. I read a great article from a Chicago reporter about the Keith hit and how he should expect a suspension, etc, etc. Then you read all the comments below from Hawks fans about how the Canucks are divers. So, even if it's proven the Canucks are divers, does this make the Keith hit any less brutal? Don't get me wrong, many Canucks fans who comment on things like this irk me just as much. It's prob why i stick to PUH where all the unbiased, brilliant hockey minds keep their comments.

Beans.....i've been saying for years that it's BS that the injury is considered in the decision (remember my rants about the Rome / Horton hit last year for example?). You wanna stop the headshots, you better start setting a better example and penalizing guys regardless of the injury. Heck, if a guy tries to throw a blatant elbow and misses, suspend him anyway! One day they may learn!!!

A guy like me eh? not sure what you mean by that. You need to calm down, you Canuck fans are sooo sensitive. The Sedins are widely know as SISTERS. If I write a sentence about them it is natural to write sister, it would feel so unnatural to call them brothers. If you don't see the humour well thats your own problem.

anyways I'll apologize I would I hate to make you mad and start a riot or something.

2 sisters no cups

"Most of the guys that wear them are Europeans and French Guys."Don Cherry on Visors

Beans15

Posted - 03/23/2012 : 08:51:04 Great points all around Alex, and I can disagree with any of them. Sedin did finish his check. It is rare. I see your point. I did misinterpret your comment to be that finishing the check was the excuse for hitting Keith in the head. Again, I apologize.

To the Sisters comment. I get it and it is tired. In this case, pretty tasteless too. Keith's hit was gross.

Hopefully one day they will learn, however that day is a long ways away if the NHL continues to punish more severely on plays that do not result in injuries.

Alex116

Posted - 03/23/2012 : 08:26:18 Beans, the only issue i had, and would still have had if i'd seen a better view prior to my post, was you saying that the Sedin hit was a headshot and not a case of finishing his check. That's ludicrous. If you wanna go on about what a saint Keith is (and i agree with your analysis and think it's out of character what he did) that's fine, but you gotta give the same leeway to Daniel Sedin no? I mean seriously, this might have been the first check he's ever thrown . Surely he wasn't intentionally headhunting??? At least his hit was part of what has unfortunately become a legal play in hockey, that being "finishing your check"! NOTHING Keith did was anything to do with a hockey play.

My best guess is that both guys got somewhat caught up in what's become arguably hockey's biggest rivalry. Emotions were high and the hits and scrums had already begun prior to this. For Sedin to actually throw that check on Keith pretty much proves this imo. You just rarely / never see either of the "sisters" finish their check (at least not that hard) and for Daniel to do it arguably late, tells me that the emotions were flying!

BTW, Slozo, i too hate the "sisters" thing. It was funny for awhile, but c'mon, someone's gotta come up with some fresh material. What i hate more than a guy like Clatts calling them "sisters", is the stupid comments they make about them. "So Sedin is hurt on a play, isn't that why his sister is there? Replacement parts." Really? Maybe it's me? Was that supposed to be an attempt at humour??? I read this kind of crap all the time. I read a great article from a Chicago reporter about the Keith hit and how he should expect a suspension, etc, etc. Then you read all the comments below from Hawks fans about how the Canucks are divers. So, even if it's proven the Canucks are divers, does this make the Keith hit any less brutal? Don't get me wrong, many Canucks fans who comment on things like this irk me just as much. It's prob why i stick to PUH where all the unbiased, brilliant hockey minds keep their comments.

Beans.....i've been saying for years that it's BS that the injury is considered in the decision (remember my rants about the Rome / Horton hit last year for example?). You wanna stop the headshots, you better start setting a better example and penalizing guys regardless of the injury. Heck, if a guy tries to throw a blatant elbow and misses, suspend him anyway! One day they may learn!!!

Beans15

Posted - 03/23/2012 : 05:29:53 I get the sisters comments. So do most Canuck fans. Regardless of skill, the Sedin's have long been know to not only be less physical players but also to avoid the physical portion of the game at all costs.

To Alex, your original statement was, and I quote, "Daniel had hit him a few shifts prior as he surprisingly "finished his check" and did get Keith high with that hit." What your interpretation missed was that Sedin never took his eyes off of Keith the entire time, was not playing the puck himself, and struck Keith directly in the head with his shoulder. That, by my definition, is not finishing a check. It is delivering an illegal hit to the head. I think it's crap. I am allowed to think it's crap. Perhaps my comment about regarding the finishing of the check was off base. I apologize. If you didn't have a chance to disect the hit, fine. But the commont of " did get Keith high on that hit," was a pretty big understatement, IMHO.

I think this change in hearings from a telephone conversation to an in-person meeting is disturbing. Not because I think that a suspension of more than 5 games is too much. What I have a problem with is the NHL considering the injury portion of a player in their suspensions. I believe in punishing the action and not the outcome. If Sedin is not injured, does that make the Keith hit less dangerous??

I still like 3 games for this based on Keith`s lack of history in this kind of thing. The guy not only doesn`t participate in these kinds of hits but donesn`t play dirty in general. This is a guy who plays 25+ a game and has 62 penalty minutes in the past 154 games!! He has never had more than 80 PIMS in a season, which is unreal for a defensemen who plays these kinds of minutes.

On the other hand, the hit was about at predetory as you can find an example of. Direct hit to the head, intent to injure. If this was another player with a past history, the punishment would like be more than 10 games.

Maybe more than 5 in this case but not more than 10.

slozo

Posted - 03/23/2012 : 04:24:08

quote:Originally posted by Clatts

So Sedin is hurt on a play, isn't that why his sister is there? Replacement parts.

Anyway to the topic pretty obvious elbow should fetch him 3-4 games based on recent suspensions.

"Most of the guys that wear them are Europeans and French Guys."Don Cherry on Visors

Honestly, I don't get the "sister" comments on the Sedins. They are highly skilled, elite players. No, they are not tough really. Yes, they are twins.

How does that make them girls? C'mon man . . . no need to be like that.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Alex116

Posted - 03/22/2012 : 22:21:36 So, apparently late today (Thurs), the league contacted the Hawks and D. Keith, and have decided they want to have an "in person" hearing for the hit (as reported by Bob Mackenzie on TSN). Mackenzie, and others, have said that a phone hearing comes with a max 5 game suspension, but i read elsewhere, that it's not set in stone that that is the max? Anyone know for sure?

Either way, it looks like the league wants to chat to him in person now. Doesn't necessarily mean he'll get more than 5, but the door is open i guess.

Gonna be real interesting to see what he ends up with......

Clatts

Posted - 03/22/2012 : 19:12:30 So Sedin is hurt on a play, isn't that why his sister is there? Replacement parts.

Anyway to the topic pretty obvious elbow should fetch him 3-4 games based on recent suspensions.

"Most of the guys that wear them are Europeans and French Guys."Don Cherry on Visors

I think it should be 5, 6 games myself, factoring in these things:1) intentIt is clear that this is a 100% intent to target the head. No forward momentum, play going on, to make any excuse of ANY kind to explain it otherwise . . . it's a straight up elbow cheap shot, meant to be directed at the head.

2) The puck was nowhere near, it wasn't a hockey play

3) the player hit was badly injured, and missed the rest of that game and will probably miss at least a few more.

The more I think about it, the more I think it should be closer to 8 games. Seriously, only thing stopping me from saying more, is that it's Keith (good record, no offences) and that he at least wasn't flying in at a dangerous speed at all.

That's pretty brutal - more so, since I have BOTH of those players in my draft pool, am fighting for the lead, and now both are out!!!

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Alex116

Posted - 03/22/2012 : 16:11:11 Just1n......thanks for the link. Had to search around a bit, but got a chance to get another look at Sedin's hit on Keith. Def suspendable IMO as he does catch his head with his upper arm / shoulder. This hit was discussed at length on the radio today, just as we have around here, that the "finishing your check" mentality that is instilled at the youth level of hockey, needs to change!

Either way, i'd be okay with a suspension to Daniel Sedin for the hit, though my guess is, if he gets one at all, it will be one game only. Having said that, with the consistency of the suspensions in the NHL, Daniel will prob get 5 and Keith just 1! Lol...

nuxfan

Posted - 03/22/2012 : 16:02:37 well, it looks like the hearing is over the phone, therefore the max suspension Keith can get is 5 games.

nuxfan

Posted - 03/22/2012 : 15:51:31 It sounds to me like Keith will get suspended, and probably more than a game. The hit has been pretty universally criticized - even the Chicago press threw Keith under the bus - and although Shanny doesn't necessarily listen to everyone else, how he could see something vastly different than everyone else is beyond me.

- It was an exaggerated hit to the head (ie, Keith actually looks to lean towards Sedin elbow first in order to make the hit)- it was directly to the head- Sedin is not even close to playing the puck or suspecting the hit.- given the earlier hit from Sedin on Keith, there is even a retaliatory/retribution element, which the NHL is trying to get rid of- According to latest reports, Sedin has a concussion and is out for at least 2 weeks.

Given all that, I see no possible way that Keith avoids a suspension. I'm thinking 3-5 games, but we'll see. The only things working in Keith's favour are that a) he has not been suspended before, and b) he's generally not considered to be a dirty or cheap player. But looking at that video, its going to be hard for him to argue a good reason how that happened unintentionally.

As for the Sedin hit on Keith - I think this is certainly a lesser hit than Keith's, although I was surprised that Sedin didn't get a penalty on the play for either boarding or hit to the head. Given that it was within the confines of a hockey play (ie, finishing his check, Keith had just let go of the puck a second or so before), and Keith was obviously unharmed, I don't think it will be reviewed by the league. If it is, 2500 fine, or maybe a 1 game suspension at worst.

I think that players that are suspended cannot use up suspensions if they are placed on the IR. If they're just listed as "day to day", they would be. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Sensfan - yeah, after the hit things got a bit out of control, and pretty much every Canuck was going after Keith in some fashion. I thought he might take one of the numerous offers to fight, but never did. But the game was entertaining to say the least.

sahis34

Posted - 03/22/2012 : 15:43:29 I think that should be 7 games.

just1n

Posted - 03/22/2012 : 15:22:35 Alex, they show Sedin on Keith in the TSN highlights of the game. Not sure how to link directly to the highlights, but watch "NHL VAN 1, CHI 2 (OT)" which is currently on page 2 of 6 in the videos on the right - http://tsn.ca/nhl/

just1n

Posted - 03/22/2012 : 15:17:17 Just watched the Doan hit. Both are pretty bad, but I think the Keith hit is a bit worse just because the puck isn't being played by Sedin. It's a retaliatory hit from the hit that Sedin put on Keith earlier in the game, but exactly what the NHL is trying to take out of the game. No attempt at a hockey play there at all.

Would be even be talking about the Sedin hit on Keith if there wasn't a retaliation? I don't think so, Keith was watching his pass for a bit too long there.

Keith will get at least three games based on the Doan comparison, I think it might be as many as five games though.

I'm likely a bit biased however ;)

Alex116

Posted - 03/22/2012 : 15:08:57

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

Alex, I think you missed part of the bottom line in that the original hit by Sedin was different only by the part of the body used to contact the head. Sedin hit Keith in the head as the principle point of contact with his shoulder. Keith hit Sedin in the had as the principle point of contact with an elbow. Don't try to lay that 'finishing his check' thing, Shoulder to the head is not finishing a check.

Now, that takes nothing away from the Keith hit and I actually think the Keith hit is worse as it is predatory and a retaliation. Neither player, to my knowledge, has been suspended or fined in the past. For those reasons, I give Sedin one game and Keith three games.

A little off topic, but how about the question of an injured player being suspended?? If Sedin was suspended for a game (which he likely won't be) would that game be served after his return from injury? This also happened when Dan Carcillio hit Tom Gilbert. He was suspended for the play but also injured for the rest of the season during that play.

Does an injured player serve the suspension once they are able to play or during the injury??

Beans.....Why are you trying to make it seem as though i'm justifying Sedin's hit on Keith. FYI, i did not see it live and only saw one replay of it. I was so shocked that a Sedin was actually throwing a hit that i didn't get a good chance to dissect it. I've looked on youtube, but all a "Keith / Sedin" search comes up with the Keith elbow. I'm sure it's out there somewhere and i'll continue to look for it so that i have a better idea of how bad it was. Regardless, the comment that you make that bothers me is this: Don't try to lay that 'finishing his check' thing, Shoulder to the head is not finishing a check. You just couldn't be more wrong in fact! What Daniel Sedin did was finish his check. Now, it may not have been legally, but he FINISHED HIS CHECK! How you can say otherwise is beyond me. At no point did i justify the way Sedin hit him, in fact i even said it was high. I made a point of saying that i was surprised Sedin actually finished a check as it's not usually his style. If that wasn't finishing a check, then tell me what is!!!

Either way, i'd agree, Sedin could be subject to a suspension, albeit very minor (1 game), though i don't think he'll get one if for nothing other than reputation alone. Having said that, i'd have to see the hit again before i can be more confident in my prediction.

The Keith hit was ridiculously predatory. I'm not even sure how many games i think he deserves cuz i get stuck comparing it to other suspensions, which we all know have been all over the map!!! The absolute worst part about this hit is not so much the retaliation, but the fact that Sedin never had the puck in his possesion. Keith may as well have gone over to the Canucks bench and punched him in the face!

Lastly, i reiterate, the suspension does absolutely squat for the Canucks. It really doesn't help them in any way so as a Canucks fan, i dont' care that much what he gets. However, as a hockey and NHL fan, i continue to await the day that there is some sort of consistency when it comes to suspensions.

Sensfan101

Posted - 03/22/2012 : 14:56:54 Did anyone else see Burrows knee Keith in the groin while he was on the ice?

You miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take Wayne Gretzky

@valanche

Posted - 03/22/2012 : 14:00:19

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

A little off topic, but how about the question of an injured player being suspended?? If Sedin was suspended for a game (which he likely won't be) would that game be served after his return from injury? This also happened when Dan Carcillio hit Tom Gilbert. He was suspended for the play but also injured for the rest of the season during that play.

what would stop a team from saying he is good to play just to get those suspension games off the books. my thought would be unless he is on the IR then the suspension games come off while he is also injured.

66 is > than 99

@valanche

Posted - 03/22/2012 : 13:58:05 for some reason i have a feeling he gets no suspension at all. i know it's not what you agree with or want to hear... but the suspensions have been all over the place this year and so inconsistent...

in addition doan isn't a good comparison he is a repeat offender.

66 is > than 99

Beans15

Posted - 03/22/2012 : 13:53:34 Alex, I think you missed part of the bottom line in that the original hit by Sedin was different only by the part of the body used to contact the head. Sedin hit Keith in the head as the principle point of contact with his shoulder. Keith hit Sedin in the had as the principle point of contact with an elbow. Don't try to lay that 'finishing his check' thing, Shoulder to the head is not finishing a check.

Now, that takes nothing away from the Keith hit and I actually think the Keith hit is worse as it is predatory and a retaliation. Neither player, to my knowledge, has been suspended or fined in the past. For those reasons, I give Sedin one game and Keith three games.

A little off topic, but how about the question of an injured player being suspended?? If Sedin was suspended for a game (which he likely won't be) would that game be served after his return from injury? This also happened when Dan Carcillio hit Tom Gilbert. He was suspended for the play but also injured for the rest of the season during that play.

Does an injured player serve the suspension once they are able to play or during the injury??